> On 22 Dec 2015, at 16:06, Juergen Schoenwaelder > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:34:41AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> >>> On 22 Dec 2015, at 11:06, Juergen Schoenwaelder >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 08:09:13PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> That's why the definition what 'published' means in the IETF is in the >>>>> guidelines document. On the other hand, since this is an IETF >>>>> document, I also do not find it problematic to define IETF rules >>>>> here. Others should be able to skip over this. There are really more >>>>> important problems to solve. >>>> >>>> It is not clear at all from sec. 10 that data modellers outside IETF may >>>> skip over this. I am not even sure that everybody in this WG agrees with >>>> your interpretation. >>>> >>> >>> You are wrong. >>> >>> - Section 10 in RFC 6020 applies to all published modules. >> >> The bullets specifying the rules are introduced with this sentence: >> >> 'A definition may be revised in any of the following ways:' >> >> so IMO it is intended to apply to *all* modules. Are you saying that it >> actually means >> >> 'A definition in a module published by IETF may be revised in any of the >> following ways:'? >> > > A definition in a published module may be revised [...] > >>> - The definition of what turns a module into a published module is >>> specific to the different organizations publishing modules. >> >> So it means that such an organization may also decide to ignore the rules >> entirely or replace them with its own rules. >> > > No. > >> If the WG can agree on this and make the corresponding changes in sec. 11 of >> 6020bis, then I have no more objections. > > The rules are there to ensure interoperability. Interoperability is an > issue for published modules (but not for modules under development).
This doesn't make much sense unless you give an objective definition of "published". For example, are proprietary modules (developed by vendors) ever published? > The IETF certainly has a history to care about interoperability. I > expect that other organizations care about interoperability as well. That's their business. Lada > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
